I rather see a 400/5.6 with IS than a 100-400. Why? Cause you'll be shooting at 400 almost all the time!

The recently released zooms (70-200, 24-70 based on MTF) are beating older primes in the same range. If the new 100-400 follows suit, there likely will not be a lot of IQ difference. So...I see big advantages in the zoom: 1) when you want to shoot shorter than 400mm (air shows, birds flying toward you) and 2) much shorter retracted length. For me, #2 is a huge advantage of the current 100-400mm over the 400/5.6 prime.

Assuming a prime and zoom of similar focal length and f-number are released the same year the prime will have the price, weight, IQ and technology advantage.

Not to mention today's 400/5.6 older than the 100-400 being replaced.

Canon prices are high for a number of reasons. Strong yen, high demand and year of release being some of them. Street prices on lenses happens between 6-9 months after release depending on how popular the lens is.

I just heard an upgrade for the EOS 1DS Mark III is in the pipeline. Unless that's the D800 competitor people are talking about. It will be announced in September but not released until early next year. I could wait ;-)

I hope Canon realises that the top end of the 400mm market is already well catered for. If they choose to discontinue the 400/5.6 then a new 100-400 really needs to be similarly priced to the current model. Otherwise, they'll price themselves out of the market and will slowly start to lose their reputation as the "go to" brand for enthusiast sports and wildlife photographers. There is precendence for new "affordable" 400mm lenses. The Sony 70-400 comes to mind.

I hope Canon realises that the top end of the 400mm market is already well catered for. If they choose to discontinue the 400/5.6 then a new 100-400 really needs to be similarly priced to the current model. Otherwise, they'll price themselves out of the market and will slowly start to lose their reputation as the "go to" brand for enthusiast sports and wildlife photographers. There is precendence for new "affordable" 400mm lenses. The Sony 70-400 comes to mind.

That were my thoughts in the beginning of the the year and I decided to buy a 5.6/400 lens due to its great IQ, fast AF, sturdy design and ... built in lens hood. I found ONE online camera seller who offered that lens regularly and paid 1240 EURO. Now it costs 1600 EUR by the same camera seller!

Something might be going on ($ to Euro exchange rates explain 10 or 12% but not 35% price increase) and if the 100-400 is replaced by a 3000$ Mark II successor the 5.6/400 will sell for a lot more money because it is the cheaper option. Until it will be replaced by an IS version for 2500 $.

Some of you have discussed about 100-400 vs. 400 and used the argument that you use a 100-400 most of the time at 400mm - I think that's correct. But for me just a 400mm lens might be a walk around lens. Her in germany the landscape is cluttered with disturbing artifacts like power lines, storage depots, drive ways, etc. - a 400mm helps to cut out photographically interesting compositions. But several times I have missed the flexibility to change the focal length to 100mm if the landscape wasn't spoiled. (Just for those who are in the process of decision making.)A last remark: That's the point where the EOS M system might come into play. The EOS M with EF adaptor and the EF-S 60mm is very light and compact ... and a good complementation to a 5.6/400 ...

I think the 100-400 will come in at $2200. Not higher than $2500, imho. Canon prices have been high lately but I think $3000 is a bit pessimistic.

It really depends on the iq - if it's just the latest IS version with "good" sharpness, they cannot land the price too far away from the current 70-300 (though it's in the different lens catergory "tele walk around"). But if the iq proves to be "stellar" $3000 would be realistic, too, if compared to the prices of 200-400 and the like.